ArticleSupportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer2017
A scoring system to guide the decision for a new systemic treatment after at least two lines of palliative chemotherapy for metastatic cancers: a prospective study.
Article in Supportive care in cancer : official journal of the Multinational Association of Supportive Care in Cancer, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Helical tomotherapy for asymptomatic chemotherapy-refractory or -unfit multiple (3 or more) metastases.Reports of practical oncology and radiotherapy : journal of Greatpoland Cancer Center in Poznan and Polish Society of Radiation Oncology · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
purposeA four-parameter score has been identified as associated with overall survival (OS) in patients with advanced cancer with an estimated survival inferior to 6 months. Here, we tested its prognostic value for OS in patients who had received more than two lines of systemic therapy.
methodsWe prospectively enrolled patients with advanced cancer who were going to receive a third or more therapeutic line outside classical clinical guidelines. The four parameters (Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status, number of metastatic sites, serum LDH, and serum albumin) were collected at baseline, allowing to calculate the score, which sorted the patients in three groups, A, B, and C (low, intermediate, and high score, respectively). We then searched for correlations between this grouping and clinicopathological features particularly OS.
resultsFrom August 2013 to March 2014, 65 patients were enrolled and corresponded after determining their score to 26 patients in group A, 30 in B, and 9 in C. The median OS of the cohort was 4.4 months, and the 6-month OS was 42%. Overall survival was different between the three groups, with respective 6-month OS equal to 80% in group A, 17% in group B, and 0% in group C and respective median OS of 9, 2.3, and 1.6 months. Such prognostic value persisted in multivariate analysis. Similar OS differences were observed in patients with PS ≤2.
conclusionThis simple scoring should help oncologists identify which patients, after at least two lines of systemic therapy, might benefit from best supportive care alone.
Indexed as
Identifiers
28353038What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.